User talk:Peter Grey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] My list of articles related to the Monarchy in Canada

Strikethrough indicates redirection.

[edit] Blogosphere

A blogger has mentioned us and how we're ruining the 9/11 pages [1]. Here's where they mention you:

Here's a typical excerpt from the discussion on there:

QUESTION: "What do you think about this possible new title:

'9/11 skepticism and conspiracy theories'

It would mention both POV and leave the reader free to judge himself what in the article is a conspiracy theory and what is just sketpticism. What do you think?"--Pokipsy76 08:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

ANSWER: "Conspiracy theories and legitimate criticisms are two separate topics; combining them into a signle article which fails to distinguish between the two would represent a loss of information." Peter Grey 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC) --DCAnderson 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cute. Peter Grey 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11: Press for Truth

Good call re the 911CT template. With hindsight it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for RfC?

As one who has been pretty active lately deeling with his edits, what is your feeling on starting a RfC on Lovelight (talk · contribs)? I noticed this morning that he removed your message to him, and his response to four separate editors reverting his changes on September 11, 2001 attacks is rather revealing. I don't really expect an RfC to go anywhere production, but it is an early step in dispute resolution on the way to arbitration. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the exact procedure that would be appropriate, but certainly some action is called for. Peter Grey 14:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, as he managed to break 3RR again, he'll probably be going away for another week. I may start sandboxing some text for a RfC and see what happens when he returns. If you want to see an example of an ongoing RfC, take a look at this one. --StuffOfInterest 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess Golbez (talk · contribs) beat us to it. The RfC has been opened. --StuffOfInterest 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Truth Movement and 9/11 truth movement

I have replied to your question on the 9/11 Truth Movement discussion page and would like to hear your thoughts.

If my definitions are correct, then given your views on this page I would say you are a 'member' of the 9/11 truth movement but NOT the 9/11 Truth Movement. By 'member' I mean 'believer' as there is no 'membership' of the "tm". Corleonebrother 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:ArthurAnderson-radio.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:ArthurAnderson-radio.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Aurora-Browne-1.jpeg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Aurora-Browne-1.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion

Hi Peter, your opinion on the current disagreement at the collaspe of the WTC article would be much appreciated. MONGO hasn't really made himself very clear.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interesting

Peter,

I expected my revision of the introduction to the 9/11 article to be reversed at some point.

What I'm curious to understand is why my revision of the introduction had to be reversed when what I contributed is more objective and closer to "truth" than what is currently in place, which is attempting to say with certainty and as fact that what happened was an attack by a specific group?

I was not looking to support or promote "conspiracy theories", nor should the revision be seen as an attempt to do so. I was merely trying to improve the article by avoiding its appearing to be merely a reflection of one view, regardless how official the government statements are.

What I find particularly interesting is not so much the truth of what happened, but the manner in which "history" is being negotiated and passed off as truth. What happened, in any circumstance, and how what happened is recorded is not transparent. Three different people at the scene of an accident will not all provide the same details of events. Why? That's just human nature. However, if "one story" is going to be adopted as the official story, who tends to be entrusted to establish that one story? Usually, it's a matter of might vs right. In other words, "to the victor go the spoils". Winners, or, those who are left standing to tell the story, usually get to tell their story to make themselves look like "the good guys" and the other side look like "the bad guys." And, if the might structure has the power to enforce its story, those who oppose it are labelled, ostracized, censured...

The very fact that there is hesitation, nay, fear, to allow an article to be written collaboratively that reflects doubt as to the official story is doubly ironic given the "freedom of speech" concept of American philosophy.

I frankly don't expect you to scratch your chin and say "hmmm, you got a point there, Duane. I'll put your revision back". I'm just writing to let you know that I saw the reversion coming, and am disappointed that people are so willing to accept the official story, regardless of its merit or lack thereof, simply because it is the official story. There are gaps and questions that increasing numbers of reasonable people are asking, and truth should not be afraid to deal with those questions. The American government has, historically, not infrequently found itself in this situation, and at some point people have to wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgaubin (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Labelling something as uncertain when there is no good-faith doubt is not objectivity, it is falsehood. There are questions that actually are unanswered - why don't you focus on those, instead of trying (and failing) to make some kind of juvenile point? Peter Grey (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Trust you to resort to insult and assume that somehow you are the arbiter of what is good-faith or objective. Your response is a clear indication of your level, down to which I will not stoop. I will, however, observe very simply that there are plenty of professionals who make their livings demolishing buildings who maintain that three perfect collapses sharing foundations is not a reasonable result of airplane crashes or fires - I'll take their good-faith doubt over your certainty any day.dgaubin (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Provide a reliable source. But note that airplane crashes or fires is different from airplane crashes and fires, and that the three buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, and 7 WTC did not have a common foundation. Errors of fact are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See also false dichotomy. Peter Grey (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] guidelines for the naming of articles

Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion - with a dictionary, if necessary - before responding. You are the party making misrepresentations. "Conspiracy theories" is the appropriate term because it is accurate; I do not personally consider its popularity to be influential. Peter Grey (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] neutral 9/11 article

Dear Peter,

on Talk:9/11, you wrote:

We're getting too far away from writing an encyclopedia) (as a comment in the history).

If you want to help conclude this debate, then please quote from the guidelines where it says that we can overrule WP:NEUTRAL in cases where we (you) believe that the RS are right in their opinion, and quote where it says that balancing an article with facts from both sides is WP:SYNTHESIS?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Equating reality and fantasy, which is the attempted WP:NEUTRAL violation behind the renaming proposal, is not supported by policy. Facts refers only to verifiably true propositions, not folklore or deliberate misinformation. If you cannot distinguish scientific conclusions from fantasy-based rumours, then perhaps you should contribute in another subject area. Peter Grey (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter, saying that one side in an argument represents fantasy is *your* subjective point of view. The official story of 9/11 is challenged by a very large number of highly qualified and respected individuals in different areas, including architects, engineers, physicists, intelligence experts, aviation experts, academics, historians, ex-ministers and ex-presidents... Please visit eg http://www.patriotsquestion911.com and http://www.ae911truth.org Saying that random fires and damage cannot break 80 steel columns (WTC 7), and all at the same instant, is a perfectly verifiable proposition (and, incidentally, one that was strongly supported by NIST's own empirical fire experiments, in which no steel supports broke despite prolonged exposure to fire). You cannot just begin to dismiss as "fantasy" a respected and widely published researcher when he reaches a conclusion different from yours. A subjective conviction cannot be the basis of violating WP:NEUTRAL. Perscurator (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, I came to your talk page because of your amazing confidence. If you use the word "maybe" more, it might make WP a better store of knowledge. People need to make their own judgments, don't you think?Dscotese (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You've used the false dichotomy again. There is plenty of scope for legitimate questions about the attacks, about the state of preparedness, about the obstruction of investigation after the fact, etc. Stories about improbable conspiracies with members that are so retarded as to intentionally demolish buildings that were already structurally compromised do not contribute to our knowledge. Peter Grey (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter, whatever the motivations behind demolishing the three skyscrapers, there is no scientific uncertainty that hundreds of steel columns in the case of the twin towers and 80 steel columns in the case of WTC 7 could not somehow snap at the same moment as a result of random fires. (It is well established, eg, that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature. Thus, an even higher temperature will be needed to offset the significant increase in yield strength, if collapse is to progress. That is why even much hotter and longer-lasting fires have never brought down highrises - outside the three alleged cases on 9/11. On the other hand, as an experienced Finnish accident analyst told me, destroying the evidence and then starting to speculate - cf, eg, NIST's undending WTC 7 "investigations" - is not the way to examine the worst building disasters in human history. The reason for the buildings' collapses could have been determined by carefully examining the debris, first on site and then off site.) As much as I abhor the conclusion, I cannot just brush it aside by trying to explain it away by motivational considerations. (I'm sure this applies to most 9/11 skeptics: we have unwillingly gone where the evidence leads.) There is simply too much evidence to show that the official account is wrong, and frankly, a lot of motives to bring about a "new Pearl Harbour" scale event. We have seen how the attacks have been utilized to legitimate almost everything, from invading two countries to installing an increasingly Orwellian police state at home. And then there are the historical precedents, eg operation Gladio (condemned by the EU in 1990) and the fact that many, if not most, wars have been started under the pretext provided by some false-flag operation or claim. Perscurator (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Be serious, the attack is on video. The fires were not random, neither was the damage caused by the airliner impacts. It's one thing to give equal time to opinions, quite another to give equal time to information and disinformation. Peter Grey (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter, office fires are ipso facto always random (=moving from place to place in search of burnable material), as was obviously the damage caused by the planes (columns were not broken symmetrically). Moreover, the fires burned in any given spot a maximum of ~20 minutes in large flames (cf. a large Finnish midsummer bonfire, which contains considerably more burnables than, say, a cubicle in the WTC). I don't think any steel column could even start deforming in such a short time - and if it did, this would then actually lead to the *strengthening* of the steel, requiring even more intense heating before failure could occur. And there is just no way that 80 steel columns could suddenly *break* at precisely the same instant, as required by WTC 7's sudden drop, as a result of office fires. If that were possible, fire demolition would have become an inexpensive alternative to the time-consuming and extremely expensive controlled demolition. Finally, don't you think the steel debris should have been examined properly? (cf. NIST: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7") Perscurator (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You have six errors of fact, not counting the ridiculous notion that a building collapse that takes out two dozen neighbouring buildings can be compared to a controlled demolition. I suggest you consult a structural engineering textbook, which is what I did before contributing to the discussion. Peter Grey (talk) 01:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have studied this issue for a couple of years and e.g. discussed the WTC destruction with several architects and engineers. I personally correspond with Richard Gage, member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which now has close to 300 professional members. All of them, and countless other experts (and others), question the notion that two airplanes can bring down three skyscrapers and almost demolish half a dozen other buildings. I have discussed the way the Ground Zero evidence was not investigated on site (a fact also confirmed by the Fire Engineering Magazine at the end of 2001 in an editorial that demanded that the destruction of the evidence be stopped immediately) with two Finnish accident researchers. One of them said that it was a travesty of investigation, while the other demonstrated that it was contrary to practices used in investigating major building disasters.
The official explanation can only be accepted if one ignores facts like New York City employee Barry Jennings testifying to the 9/11 Commission that he and his colleague Michael Hess were trapped within WTC 7 as a result of an explosion that largely destroyed a floor beneath them. The fire department had to help the men out of the building. (Jennings was interviewed by TV stations on 9/11.) The 9/11 Commission, of course, completely ignored his testimony (as it did the entire WTC 7 collapse), which was just one of the many things that clearly contradict the official story. (As is well known, the Commission also ignored, among other things, the testimony of Norman Mineta - no less than the Minister of Transportation - and the FAA memorandum, both given to the Commission itself, which for their part contradict the official story that the strike against the Pentagon came as a suprise to all.) In addition, it has now been acknowledged that much of their report was based on unverified "information" gleaned from tortured prisoners. Truly believable stuff.
Ignoring contrary evidence is the only way in which the official story can be maintained. And I say this as a very ordinary Finnish Master of Social Sciences, who has never been particularly interested in conspiracy theories but who, like many of my other countrymen and women, has enough critical aptitude to see a hole where there is one, courage to question official explanations when warranted, and willingness to go where the evidence goes. Perscurator (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
False dichotomy, again. Saying an event merits investigation is not the same as saying the most improbable explanation must be true. And stop saying 'official story', there's no such thing. Peter Grey (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, Peter: "official storIES" would be better term, as there have been, e.g., three different official explanations ("stories") for the lack of air force response during the two-hour hijacking drama. The second explanation was held for several years, to be replaced by the Commission's very different one. No one was held responsible for promoting and maintaining the (ipso facto) false story for years. How can we trust the third explanation - especially in the light of its own problems?
Please answer these simple questions: 1) Do you think it should have been investigated what caused the explosion that trapped Jennings and Hess within WTC 7? 2) And what about the explosion you can hear (unless you block your ears, that is) in this Italian investigative documentary excerpt? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 You can hear a loud explosion coming from WTC 7, and first responders are shown startled by the blast, and one them asks "What the hell was that?" (This is towards the end of the 6-minute segment.) Should that explosion have been investigated?
NIST has now postponed its WTC 7 report for well over three years. What if it is still unpublished, say, three years from now? Would you not have any problem with that either? Remember that we are dealing with the third-worst building disaster in human history, with vast implications for building safety and construction. Mankind needs to come up with a way of preventing highrises from suddenly dropping into their foundations from fires as if there was only air to be displaced between their roofs and the ground, a phenomenon discovered on 9/11.(1)
(1) The press release of the Norwegian 9/11 truth movement expresses this problem quite succinctly:
"OCT draws support from reports that clock the fall time of the Twin Towers at less than 15 seconds. This implies a slowdown compared to free-fall of no more than 5 seconds, or less than 5 hundredths per floor. Such a minute slowdown is utterly unlikely from just a fire, because it would mean that thousands of support points would have to fail at the same time, so that there were no resistance left against the collapse in the building structure. [...] When all that usually keeps the floors, ceilings and walls of a skyscraper in place, is ignored entirely, then the scientist manages to do the maths and make it all tumble down in less than 15 seconds. This isn’t mathematics; this is magic and make-believe." http://911truth.no/index.php?l=en
It is basic physics that destroying structures consumes energy and slows down collapse. In the case of the North Tower, the top, which is supposed to have crushed the floors below, made up approximately 10 percent of the mass of the building. Are you seriously saying that this 10 percent would have crushed the 90 percent below (as well as itself - all 110 floors were destroyed) at basically the speed of free fall through air? Perscurator (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It is more basic physics that gravity is an acceleration, and that energy may be both kinetic and potential. What did you think the 'speed' would be? Peter Grey (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Peter! Let's consider the case of WTC 7, which NIST has "had trouble getting a handle on" (perhaps investigating the steel debris would have helped). Destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures would necessarily have slowed down the collapse.
In a vacuum, an object falls the height of WTC 7 in 5.95 seconds. An object falling in a vacuum does not crush, twist or displace anything – not even air. If WTC 7 had collapsed in 5.95 seconds, not even air (let alone the rest of the building!) would have separated its roof from the ground.
After it started its descent, WTC 7's roof reached the ground in approximately 6.5 seconds.
Now, this is one way of conceptualizing this: as an object falling freely does not crush or twist anything (not even air), the time available for gravitational crushing or twisting of the building's ~80 steel columns throughout its 47 floors is slightly over 0.5 seconds (6.5 - 5.95 seconds) – or, if you like, ~0.01 seconds per floor ( 0.5 / 47). And that includes air resistance. So, the 0.5 seconds + free fall time is not enough even in theory for a total gravitational destruction of a 174-meter highrise. Every floor would have had to slow down the collapse at least somewhat compared to mere air. The acceleration would have been slower. Ergo, (much of) the structural resistance was removed by means of explosives - perhaps like those that caused the Barry-Jennings-and-his-colleague-trapping explosion in the building, or those you can hear in the Italian documentary. In controlled demolitions, of course, a building's roof typically reaches the ground in a time that is just slightly longer than free fall time. Perscurator (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cute, but floors collapse from two effects: the impact of higher floors and the dynamic loading of the higher floors. Compression loading travels at the speed of sound - it's faster than a demolition.
Consider also that demolition does not cause structural deformations ahead of denotation. This is conclusive proof that 7 WTC did not fail by deliberate demolition. Peter Grey (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What structural deformations do you mean? The "kink" in the middle? In a lot of demolition videos, one can see such a kink in the middle of the roof just before the buildings start to fall. The kink results from the removal of a core column, exploded within the building. This is done to ensure that the building collapses as neatly as possible, mostly within its footprint.
Consider this: you have, say, a 3-meter-tall scale model of WTC 7, complete with the 47 floors, walls, 81 steel support columns, the roof, etc. Alongside it you have just the roof, in the same scale, suspended at the same height as the model's roof. Now, cut the 81 support columns on the bottom floor of the model at precisely the same instant so that the model begins to collapse (almost) straight down, and simultaneously allow the roof alongside the model to drop freely. The freely dropping roof reaches the ground in approximately one second. Does the roof of the model reach the ground in one second? Perscurator (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
7 WTC was determined to be at risk based on structural deformations well ahead of the actual (visible) collapse. That's why it was evacuated. That doesn't mean there aren't questions: one can ask if the construction had been deficient, if fire safety had been compromised, if flammable materials had been stored improperly, etc. But it does mean there was not a sudden demolition.
Consider this: Why would someone go to the immense effort to perform a controlled demolition if this would only make the results look less authentic? Peter Grey (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The evacuation of WTC 7 started before the second tower was struck. This is perfectly well known. Also, Barry Jennings testified to this: when he and Michael Hess went to the mayor's command bunker in WTC 7 soon after 9 a.m., they found a deserted bunker. (On their way back down, a floor below them was largely destroyed by an explosion, as Jennings testified to the 9/11 Commission. But evidently you aren't interested in such "minor" details.)
You didn't answer my question. Whatever deformations WTC 7 had, the main collapse started suddenly, with the simultaneous loss of support of about 80 columns. I present a slightly modified question, accommodating the structural deformations:
You have a 3-meter-tall scale model of WTC 7, complete with the 47 floors, walls, 81 steel support columns, the roof, etc. Some structures here and there are structurally weakened and deformed. Alongside it you have just the roof, in the same scale, suspended at the same height as the model's roof. Now, cut the 81 support columns on the bottom floor of the model at precisely the same instant so that the model begins to collapse (almost) straight down, and simultaneously allow the roof alongside the model to drop freely. The freely dropping roof reaches the ground in approximately one second. Does the roof of the model reach the ground in one second? Perscurator (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The onus is on you - what's your calculation? Not a vague statement of astonishment, a quantitative result. (Plus, your hypothetical free fall time would be 0.78 seconds, so already your 1 second collapse time is 28% longer, not equal.) Peter Grey (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I wrote "approximately 1 second", but let me rephrase as follows:
"The roof dropping freely through air reaches the ground in x.xx seconds". Does the roof of the model reach the ground in the same time?"
Seriously, I think the onus is on you to prove that it doesn't take longer for a roof to crush through 47 stories and 80 support pillars than it would take for the roof to fall unimpeded by nothing but air!
Although to imply that the necessity to crush through mass doesn't slow down fall is a magical rather than scientific approach, here are some calculations for you: http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html (please see the section entitled "Collapse Speed") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perscurator (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The question is not if it's slower, it's how much slower, which you have ignored. If your approximation is that sloppy, then, yes, they reach the ground at the same time. Although your toy model does nicely illustrate that once the mass is in motion and the loading is impact instead of static, collapse progresses at a rate independent of its cause. Peter Grey (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Peter, there isn't a time difference to speak of: the corresponding freefall time for WTC 7 is 5.95 seconds; the actual time in which the roof came to the ground after its descent started was approximately 6.5 seconds; the fall time through just air for any somewhat heavy object is 6+ to 7 seconds. Heikki Kurttila, a Doctor of Technology and Senior Accident Analyst, calculates that an apple would have taken 7 seconds to hit the ground through air if dropped from the roof of WTC 7. (As you know, different objects have a somewhat different air resistance.) Kurttila also calculates that the resistance factor during the observed collapse time of WTC 7 was only 0.16: http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
And did you have a look at the more detailed calculations here? http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
A retired physics teacher had this to say (translation) based on them: "From the measured acceleration, 8-9 m/s2, one can calculate that the force of resistance of the structural supports resisting the falling of the upper part was less than 15 percent of the resistance normally offered by the building (Newton's second law). This shows that the structures had been artificially weakened suddenly. Weakening by fire is gradual and is also therefore out of the question." Perscurator (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
9% is not the same as zero. You're still avoiding a fundamental question: is the collapse time atypical for a catastrophic structural failure from fire and impacts? You have to do that calculation also and show that it does not correspond to observations. Peter Grey (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I will return to this (literally) split-second topic. :) Meanwhile, please have a look at this photograph, captured during the first few seconds of the tower's collapse: http://bp0.blogger.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/R8ipXMie1GI/AAAAAAAAAIg/NW_EcyApRNg/s1600-h/explosion.jpg
Do you think the photograph actually supports the view that a monolithic upper part destroyed the structures below? Perscurator (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If you looked at the photo before making your comments, you would have realized that that is not 7 WTC. Peter Grey (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Peter, of course it is not WTC 7. (As I said, I have been researching 9/11 for several years!) WTC 7 was not a "tower". The building in the photo was the North Tower. It is, of course, a related issue, and I wanted your opinion on it, as the picture shows that even at the very beginning of the destruction, material was being ejected laterally even more forcefully than vertically - the lateral debris field well exceeds the width of the tower on the left side of the tower in the picture. However, initially the collapse speed would have been slow (nothing coming even close to free fall), so whence the extremely powerful lateral ejections? Hand on your heart: are you really saying that the upper part in the picture is falling down rather than disintegrating itself?
Second, returning to WTC 7, by 9 percent you must be referring to the difference to freefall speed in a vacuum (6.5 seconds vs. 5.95 seconds). However, we were discussing the observed collapse speed compared to the corresponding falling speed if just air would have slowed down the fall of the roof. As Kurttila calculates, it would have taken 7 seconds for an apple to drop to the ground, and for any object the time would have been more than 6 seconds. The roof of WTC 7 came to the ground well within that time, so that one can say that the roof came to the ground so fast that only air can have slowed it down - not the 80 or so support columns throughout 47 floors. Yet we know that it is physically impossible for all the intervening material not to have slowed down the collapse more than air. In reality, the resistance offered by the support structures would have been considerable compared to resistance by just air. Perscurator (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • initially the collapse speed would have been slow How slow? 9%?
  • extremely powerful lateral ejections And what do you calculate the horizontal and vertical momentum values to be?
  • falling down rather than disintegrating Look at the picture again, it's doing both. How could it fall down without disintegrating?
  • the resistance offered by the support structures would have been considerable How considerable? You keep avoiding the most basic question. Peter Grey (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop wasting my time. You have no evidence, only your personal astonishment at the phenomenon of gravity. Simply saying the building fell down is not enough to conclude if fell down by deliberate demolition. Peter Grey (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As a background, if you look at the calculations based on video evidence here --

http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html -- you can see that the facade of WTC 7 accelerated downward at very close to the rate of free fall. The difference to the rate of free fall is so small as to be virtually nonexistent. Also, according to the analysis of Frank Legge, Ph.D., the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

Now, the building mass, even if partly weakened here and there, would have necessarily resisted the collapse considerably more than just air. So, how much longer a time, compared to "air-only-resisted" time, would have been needed? The answer that already suffices to prove that WTC 7 was a CD is longer, because there can, ipso facto, have been no breaking or crushing of any intervening steel and concrete structures if only air can have resisted the dropping of the roof. To recap, if WTC 7 had collapsed in 6 seconds, not even air could have slowed down the collapse; but it collapsed in 6.5 seconds, in which only air, but nothing else, can have slowed down the descent of the roof. It is thus irrelevant, from the viewpoint of demonstrating a CD, if the precise figure is, say, 20 seconds or 30 seconds more (but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be looking for an approximation). The observed 0 seconds more compared to air-only-resisted collapse time is obviously not enough for the gravitational crushing and breaking work required (and actually, I believe some simple Finnish common sense is all it takes to understand this), but is consistent with the time in which highrises come to the ground in controlled demolitions.
If you think that buildings can completely collapse without structural resistance to speak of without a controlled use of explosives (also suggested by the New York City officials' and others' first-hand eyewitness testimonies of explosions, which you - like the 9/11 commission - simply choose to ignore), there really is no point in continuing. -Perscurator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.72.35 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If sufficient explosives had been used to compromise every part of the structure simultaneously, there would no possibility whatsoever of disguising that fact. The only way to overload all of the structural components would be.... impact loading from collapse of a section of the structure. This is what is so comic about the conspiracy theories: counter-intuitive or not, the fact that collapse was rapid supports failure from loading and disproves the demolition hypothesis, not the other way around. Peter Grey (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Peter, thanks for the cordial reply! Well, we agree on the fact that WTC 7's roof came to the ground in 6.5 seconds, and that is the time in which it would have reached the ground if the only resistance provided was by air. But you and me both know that it is not physically possible for the intervening structures to have provided no resistance at all - except if the resistance was removed by explosives. If air had to resist the collapse, 170 meters of building mass would also have have had to resist it - surely there's no question about this? I can't think of any way around this. I wish there were, but there isn't. Not in this physical universe and with the current natural laws, at least. (That may be one of the many reasons why hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals demand a new, and real, investigation.)
By contrast, it would not have been impossible to have loaded, say, every third floor with the required explosives (as a demolition expert interviewed in a documentary noted, his company puts explosives in every second floor). The physically impossible cannot be explained away by something that is possible, even if it may be more or less challenging.
Here are two additional, related proofs. First, the WTC samples gathered by the US Geological Survey and two research teams have revealed the presence of melted iron, lead, and molybdenum. The melting points of these are: 1538, 1740 and 2623 degrees Celsius, respectively. Such high temperatures cannot be explained by hydrocarbon fires, whose air temperatures max out at 1100 degrees Celsius under perfectly optimum conditions. According to the authors, an article based on the results has been accepted for publication in a mainstream science journal as well. Please see
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf
But of course, thermal imaging by NASA had already showed that the top of the WTC 7 debris pile had a temperature of 730 degrees Celsius - five days after the collapse! Deeper, and immediately after the destruction, temperatures were obviously even higher. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by office fires or by an ordinary, gravity-driven collapse. When the potential energy of a building experiencing an ordinary gravitational collapse turns into thermal energy, the result is only a few degrees' average increase in temperature.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
Based on the above and all the other evidence, there is nothing comical about the argument that 9/11 was an inside job. (History is also filled with smaller and larger conspiracies, such as the above-mentioned Cold War operation Gladio condemned by the EU in 1990, in which hundreds of women, men and children were murdered in false-flag terrorist attacks blamed on the Left. Similarly, most wars have been started with some kind of a false-flag incident as a pretext. Sensitivity to history helps here as it does elsewhere.) As someone I know noted: "Even for those draw different conclusions to this point or that one, there's just no way anyone who knows and understand the key facts can rationally oppose a new, objective, international investigation [about 9/11]." Perscurator (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


To sum up (and to add some possible motives that you asked about earlier),
1) the temperatures of at least up to 2623 degrees Celsius, indicated by the WTC samples collected by three different parties, including U.S. Geological Survey (cf. the above-linked article), are strongly supported by
2) NASA's thermal imaging, proving a surface temperature of WTC 7's rubble pile of still 730 degrees Celsius five days after the collapse, despite massive watering (the right word?). During and right after the destruction the temperature had to be several times that high (such as up to or above 2623 degrees Celsius) - which cannot in any way have been caused by hydrocarbon fires.
Add to that the fact that
3) 47 stories of building structures did not provide even the same resistance than mere air
4) 80 or so support columns had to be destroyed at the same instant (because of the sudden vertical collapse of an entire floor) when fires die down fairly quickly in any given place
5) the (ignored) reports of explosions by credible individuals
6) the destruction of the evidence without investigation (while the reason for the collapse could have been determined by carefully investigating the debris)
7) a very large number of records of major ongoing investigations of Enron and other companies were permanently destroyed with WTC 7,
and there is an undeniable case for a new investigation.
Incidentally, did you know that Italy's former president Francesco Cossiga, who played a part in revealing the Gladio conspiracy and has considerable intelligence ties, has said that 9/11 was also a false-flag operation (to get casus belli)? Perscurator (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (1) and (2) Demolition could not have caused 730 deg C temperatures five days after the collapse either.
  • (3) You have yet to quantify the resistance. That means my back of an envelope calculations remain unchallenged.
  • (4) Of course they collapsed at the same instant. Were you expecting them to draw lots? The load redistributes itself until there is no resistance - hence the prior deformation of 7 WTC, which demolition cannot explain.
  • (5) "Explosions" is what sudden failure under loading sounds like.
  • (6) and (7) I have never claimed that investigation is not merited, only that it is not motivated by folklore that has no scientific basis.
  • The attacks have obviously been exploited as a "false-flag" operation by Bush and the other war criminals, and legitimate investigation has been obstructed - that does not reveal anything about the attacks themselves, and would belong in a different article anyway.
  • Here is bit of unscientific speculation: The conspiracy theory nonsense is a deliberate hoax, which discredits pursuit of legitimate questions surrounding issues of preparedness, negligence, exploitation, etc. There is a far better chance of proving criminal wrongdoing after the building collapse than there is for physically impossible folklore about the attacks themselves - so why do people pursue the latter and not the former? Peter Grey (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I reply below point by point.

*(1) and (2) Demolition could not have caused 730 deg C temperatures five days after the collapse either.
If demolition could not have caused the measured temperatures either, what did? If the destruction-time temperatures were high enough to melt molybdenum (2623 deg C, perhaps even above), the high residual temperatures can be accounted for. Also, fires unequivocally cannot cause temperatures of up to 2600 deg C, so explosives seem to be the only possible cause for such temperatures.
*(3) You have yet to quantify the resistance. That means my back of an envelope calculations remain unchallenged.
When air resistance is accounted for, there is little if anything left for structural resistance! I once pointed out to an engineer that WTC 7 came to the ground at near free fall speed. He was immediately convinced that it was a CD, by that fact alone (saying "Karua faktaa", roughly translatable as "Hard cold fact"). It is physically impossible for 174 meters of steel and concrete structures to provide less resistance than just air. No calculations are needed to prove that, any more than one needs to prove that air resists fall by comparison to void. (If NIST wishes to debunk "conspiracy theories", it will have to consider the collapse speed and not bypass it.)
  • (4) Of course they collapsed at the same instant. Were you expecting them to draw lots?
Peter, a large Finnish midsummer bonfire (4 meters wide, 4 meters high) contains much more burnable material than any equivalent space did in the WTC. The bonfire burns in large flames for about 15 minutes, then fairly rapidly dies out. Even that would do nothing to a steel column, let alone the smaller and shorter-lasting fires in the WTC. Did you know that NIST performed fire testing? They subjected the steel to intense fires for longer than the fires lasted in the twin towers, and no collapse was observed. That is, of course, because steel actually hardens when it deforms, requiring even more and longer-lasting heating for collapse to occur. (And even if by some miracle a few columns had given way as a result of the fleeting fires, the vast majority of the intact columns would not have just decided to go along with the few failing columns. The collapse would have been partial, and in the worst case the building would have toppled to the side where the columns had failed. But we have seen that even 20-hour fires elsewhere haven't caused skyscraper collapses.)
  • (5) "Explosions" is what sudden failure under loading sounds like.
Barry Jennings and Michael Hess testified about a powerful explosion in WTC 7 before either of the twin towers had come down; ergo, what caused the sudden failure in WTC 7? Even the media reported about explosions even prior to collapses, eg: "And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last." Whatever the cause of such explosions, shouldn't their role in the buildings' destruction have been investigated?
  • (6) and (7) I have never claimed that investigation is not merited, only that it is not motivated by folklore that has no scientific basis.
That the evidence whose careful examination would have revealed the cause of the building's destruction was destroyed without investigation is absurd - unless, perhaps, there was unwillingness to find out what really caused the destruction. No building collapse would be "investigated" in Finland by first preventing onsite investigations, then quickly recycling all the evidence (NIST: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7") and starting to speculate and postpone the report year after year.
*The attacks have obviously been exploited as a "false-flag" operation by Bush and the other war criminals, and legitimate investigation has been obstructed - that does not reveal anything about the attacks themselves, and would belong in a different article anyway.
  • Here is bit of unscientific speculation: The conspiracy theory nonsense is a deliberate hoax, which discredits pursuit of legitimate questions surrounding issues of preparedness, negligence, exploitation, etc. There is a far better chance of proving criminal wrongdoing after the building collapse than there is for physically impossible folklore about the attacks themselves - so why do people pursue the latter and not the former?
I just think there is already enough evidence that the attacks themselves were a false-flag attack - and as I've said, I've never been particularly "into conspiracy theories". Moreover, I don't think that well-known architects, engineers, commercial pilots, ex-ministers (Robert Bowman!), professors, intelligence experts etc. would risk their careers and reputation by resorting to unfounded speculation. I also think that revealing the false-flag nature of 9/11 is the only way to put an end to everything that the attacks have been and continue to be used to legitimate - including the deaths of hundreds of thousands (perhaps even close to a million) of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A long-time editor of Washington Post emailed me two years ago, saying that the Post should have looked into things like the NORAD contradictions and the Mineta testimony vs. the Commission's report a long time ago. Do you agree? Note that they still haven't done that. Perscurator (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Sorry, Bowman was not a minister, but his credentials include: "Lt. Col., PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career." Perscurator (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


  • That is a very impressive discussion you guys are having! Fortunately, we (wikipedia) do not have to decide which is true, we only need to present both views fairly, concisely, and proportionately to prominence of each. Agree?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory truthiness

Exactly because wikipedians were unable to reach consensus on certain issues, we have invented the "NO OR" policy. I admire you for being so certain about your "truth". However, policy is quite clear: when there is a significant minority, wikipedia does not judge one side "true" and the other "retarded". If you do judge so personally, that is your right (it's still sort of allowed to have an opinion in America, thank God), but you must keep professional distance when you are editing wikipedia. As long as you think they "are" retarded in stead of that "you think they are" retarded, you should stay away because you are unfit to function properly on wikipedia.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not label the conjecture retarded, I merely pointed out the logical inconsistency between people being smart enough to hide a conspiracy for years but stupid enough to have committed a heinous crime for absolutely no purpose. This is simply one reason among many that reliable sources have consequently judged such conjectures as having less merit than others. If questioning the mainstream version of events is so important to you, why not raise reasonable questions? Peter Grey (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Raising questions is something I can do in my private life. Wikipedia is not a forum. Here we only need to mention the questions that have been raised by significant minorities, whether I agree with the questions or not. If there is a controversy, we should present it. If the controversy appears resolved, we should report that. If the "resolution" of the controversy is also disputed, we should report that also. Just report, not engage. Wikipedia is not the place to defend your truth. Co-presenting is all we do.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I need your input at Talk:9/11#March 10 changes, at the bottom (03:29, 11 March 2008). Thx!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear Peter Grey,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not yet examined the reliable sources and therefore I have no opinion, though the importance of the statement, for the lead article at least, appears questionable. Peter Grey (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical mood

No, but thanks anyways. Here is an example:
    1. "I am real."
    2. "I am real."
    3. "I am real."
In these cases, I am saying the underlined louder. So in 2 and 3, we have a change in grammatical mood because 2 is in the energetic mode while 3 is in the declarative mode.
So that leaves us with case #1: my question. What do you call it when you use this same concept with nouns and what are the categories? Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introducing Factual Errors

I certainly won't. I'll thank you to do the same. --Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Much as I support your reversions of Mr Strongbow, I was not aware that evoltion had been proved in 2005! What happened then? Paul B (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Between the various genome projects and some statistical analysis, all the so-called missing links were resolved. Though evolution really was proven pretty convincingly before then; the creationists are still catching up with 19th century science. Peter Grey (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
"All the so-called missing links were resolved"? When/where/how did that happen? I just want all of us to be intellectually honest. I don't think it is either fair or useful to accuse all Creationists of "still catching up with 19th century science." Creationists don't agree with Evolutions. Does that make them unintelligent? I don't think it does, but it certainly makes them different, and in many cases it makes them brave, as they risk having the so-called mainstream scientific community scoffing at them. Let's keep it real. That's all I ask.
--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Creationists are not unintelligent. Clearly they understand evolution and know that it is correct within the limits of scientific accuracy - otherwise it wouldn't frighten them so much. Peter Grey (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution Disclaimer

To show intellectual honesty, I recommend that some kind of Evolution disclaimer be inserted wherever Darwinistic-evolution theories are used to draw conclusions. People should be made aware when conclusions are based upon a science whose foundation is a list of assumptions. I suggest the use of the following disclaimer (or something that captures its essence):

Based upon the assumptions which form the foundation of Darwinistic-based biological evolution, the following hypotheses have been derived.

--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with your recommendation. Your edits pretending there was no physical evidence of evolution indicate intellectual honesty is not your priority. Please stop vandalizing. Peter Grey (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Based upon the official warning that you received from Stifle (see below), I realize that I may go back to the Origin of Language article and reinsert my disclaimers where you have errased them. If you still wish for them to be removed, you must discuss the issue with me in the Talk section of that article. We then would need to come to some kind of compromise. Sound right? -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's wrong. Beleg Strongbow has been told in no uncertain terms by three separate users that the disclaimers should not be included. He's also been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring.
However, you need to be careful when reverting. Only simple and obvious vandalism may be reverted without regard to the 3RR. That means something that any admin looking at the edit for the first time would say "yup, that was vandalism". Stifle (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I would like to offer an apology for having been such a nuisance within the Origin of Language article. I do not consent that my intentions were inappropriate, but I wholeheartedly admit that my methods were. I was wrong in the way I handled the situation, and I apologize. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Origin of language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper explaination of your revert to Collapse of the World Trade Center

Could you explain what you meant by your recent edit summary "only makes sense if the 'path of greatest resistance' is both damaged and undamaged"?

Could you explain why the first instance of dust on this page should not be wikified? After all the collapse produced large quantities of it.

Could you explain why the pancake theory should not be linked on this page? The term was used in the 9/11 Commission report and by many others to describe the cause of the collapse. I think its a bit odd that Wikipedia doesn't have a page for the pancake theory yet, considering that it's the "commonly accepted process" of WTC collapses. The use of the pancake theory should also have a citation from those that have used the term. Could you explain why you removed the fact template?

The buildings fell down onto themselves into what is described as their "footprint" as opposed to falling onto other buildings? Could you explain why you removed the term footprint?

A collapse direction through the path of greatest resistance is unexpected and unusual, considering that the building beneath was sound. The central support columns especially should of provided some resistance and the building above the impact points should have toppled sideways where there was no resistance. But that didn't happen and this is odd and not fully explained.

Another citation regarding the debris ejected ahead of the collapse is needed because demolition experts and have described them as squibs rather than ejected material. Could you explain why you also removed this citation needed template? - Shiftchange (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The pancake collapse is not consistent with the context, which does not discuss the collapse mechanism at that level of detail. The characterization of falling in the downward direction as unusual is an error of fact - given the mass and geometry of 7 WTC, toppling to the side would be virtually impossible. The path of greatest resistance in the undamaged building is not relevant to the damaged building under dynamic rather than static loading. Squibs are, by definition, ejected material. The entire edit reduces the clarity of the article and appears to have been made either in bad faith or by an uninformed editor. Peter Grey (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)